But you aren't going to be replacing grassy fields for grazing with fields. Phasing out meat production also means greatly reducing the amount of grains we need in the first place. I have read that the amount of grain that livestock eats in this country is enough to feed 800 million people.

America going vegetarian would also mean we would either have an excess amount of grains, or we would have a bunch of unnecessary farmland. I think it's a sure bet that It won't be used to help feed the poor though...

I know you're joking, but that is exactly how twisted left wing ideology gets when it has festered too long.

I want you to take a moment and honestly consider the following question.

Which of these two do you think is more likely:

1) The left wants to turn everyone into black transgender lesbian atheistic Muslims on welfare having abortions, and the right wing is absolutely right about the liberal agenda...2) The left believes in respecting the humanity, identity, and choices of people, and the right wing tries to demonize liberal ideology in order to make foolish people (like yourself) believe that protecting a choice or identity is the same as forcing it on people.

If you argue that free speech should only be protected against the government and not against employers, then you are in effect saying that a majority of people shouldn't have any free speech protections at all.

Do you want free speech, freedom of association, or a free market? You have the right to say what you want (in theory) without government retribution, but that doesn't mean that the government is going to protect you from the social or business consequences.

You are free to show up for a job interview wearing a "I 3 Hitler" T-shirt, but the company isn't required to give you a job. If it does hire him, customers are free to say they disapprove. The company is free to keep them on (and piss off and lose customers over it), or they can be free to fire them in order to distance themselves from negative customer reactions.

None of those interactions are the government's concern, which is what makes it free.

Sure, they are all scourge of the earth. However, they are still human, albeit morally reprehensible humans.

They should face the consequences of their crimes, but yet as civilized people we still have the moral duty to allow them with certain human rights.

However, the problem with the analogy (aside from being offensive and inflammatory) is that unlike gays, their rights have nothing to do with the reason we condemn them.

Nazis have the right to hold Nazi beliefs, but they don't have the right to harm the people they hate. Rapists and abusers have the right to think whatever twisted disgusting things they want, but they don't have the right to harm people.

Gays aren't taking anything away from anyone or harming anyone in either their thoughts or their actions.

Romantic, civil, or business partnerships of legally consenting, mentally capable, and non-coerced adults should not be restricted by anything at all.

Is that fact based on your political or religious affiliation, or based on actual research?

The reading I've done on the subject seems to either be on the side that it is genetic, or at the very least genetically biased. I'd have let you slide if you said that you doubt is genetic, or it's not clear that it's genetic.

However, just outright saying definitively that it's not genetic seems pretty bold.